Jung: Types can be divided into subtypes...what are the implications?

[Inquisitor]

He said that Thinking (Ti or Te) can be split into "intuitive (Ni) and speculative (Ne), logical (Ti) and mathematical (Te), empirical (Si) and positivist (Se),". I think that he might be suggesting that T-doms can be T-dom with N-aux, pure T-dom and T-dom with S-aux. He said that other subtypes "could be made" of the other functions. Since he said "could be made", it sounds to me like they would be other subgroups, that depend on their auxiliary.

I find his choices very interesting, as "speculative" sounds very much like Ne, "empirical" sounds like the way that SJs reason with Si, and "positivist" is very much how SPs are so continually optimistic and opportunistic. It suggests to me that he lists 6 subgroups. But since he says that there are only 3 subgroups, he clearly thinks that each pair is equivalent to one, and cannot be split further. It thus occurs to me, that he might be suggesting that any ISTP can be both positivist (Se) OR empirical (Si). Thus, if the auxiliary function is Sensation, then both Si AND Se are available to the ISTP.

He also suggests that Thinking can be logical and mathematical. But that corresponds with T, not N or S. That is possible, because Jung wrote that the auxiliary is a help and support to the dominant, and is also always subject to the dominant (hence the name: dominant). However, that also suggests that one doesn't need an aux type. Jung also wrote that a person with an undifferentiated auxiliary would have an undeveloped and primitive thinking, which we would NOT expect of someone who is logical and mathematical.

Can you please reference the passage where he says this?

I don't know how to resolve this yet.

The description of the subtypes of Thinking suggests types of careers. The dominant may be HOW one reasons, while the subtypes tell us in which fields of work the dominant naturally leans.

Probably. I don't recall Jung ever saying there were 16 types. I think that the 16 types came from Myers and Briggs. In this system, there are the 8 Jungian types, and the 16 types of MBTI, 24 types in total.

But according to socionics, and I agree with their system b/c I arrived at the same conclusion independently, There are 16 "types" but each type is a small Gaussian where some people have a well-developed aux, and others do not.

He said "fruitless", not "useless".

No he said "useless."

You have to look at the whole paragraph. As Jung explained, "we may understand one of the greatest errors of our civilization, that is, the superstitious belief in statement and presentation, the immoderate overprizing of instruction by means of word and method." They cannot bear fruit, because "what is just their greatest fault, viz. their incommunicability,". Why? Because, as Jung wrote, "Their life teaches more than their words." They communicate how to do what they do, by doing it. They cannot separate thought and deed. It's one to them. Even when they say they are separating them, they are still strategising and trying to achieve an objective. Everything is about achieving a goal to them. Even when they are relaxing, they are still trying to achieve a goal. Hence their preferred forms of entertainment: getting the high score in video games, and winning debates. Thus, in order to learn from an Ni-dom or an Si-dom, one has to watch what they do, figure out what they are doing and why, and then try to do it themselves. Even when they criticise others, they are not making objective criticisms but are speaking in context, which only says "you didn't do what I wanted", or "you did what I wanted, but I'd rather not praise you for it at the moment, for reasons of my own." When they praise others, it's also to achieve an objective in the context.

Remember, INTJs do everything to achieve an objective. When they give you rational arguments why they are right, they are not explaining why they think what they think. They are telling you things that they think will persuade you to believe them. That is why, when you point out flaws in their argument, they come up with another argument, and another, until you give in. The argument is not the reason for their claim. It is merely a method of persuasion. If one method fails to persuade you, then reason dictates to try another and another, until one method works.

So you aren't hearing the real reasons. It's often because of something they "saw" in their mind, such as a hopeful ideal. At other times, they actually get an impression and base their ideas on what they think it means. Hence why INTJs so often go on and on about function/meaning/purpose.

This is an excellent, excellent observation. Thanks.

INFJs see their visions as real images.

Not sure what this means. In theory it should be exactly the same as INTJs except for the fact that the "vision" is concerned with different things.

Took me a long time to understand them. Everything is processed through the sensory system. When they are hungry, they complain about everything but the fact that they are hungry. When they are fed, they stop complaining. It's like when their stomach grumbles, it takes over their mouth and grumbles for real.

This may be very true. The one ISFJ I do know is extremely concerned with food. On the whole though, it's like Jung said, they're hard to understand and they don't understand themselves either. They're melancholic creatures dwelling in the past.

 

[scorpiomover]

Can you please reference the passage where he says this?

No, problemo, mon frere:

11. The Principal and Auxiliary Functions

In the foregoing descriptions I have no desire to give my readers the impression that such pure types occur at all frequently in actual practice. The are, as it were, only Galtonesque family-portraits, which sum up in a cumulative image the common and therefore typical characters, stressing these disproportionately, while the individual features are just as disproportionately effaced. Accurate investigation of the individual case consistently reveals the fact that, in conjunction with the most differentiated function, another function of secondary importance, and therefore of inferior differentiation in consciousness, is constantly present, and is a -- relatively determining factor. [p. 514]

For the sake of clarity let us again recapitulate: The products of all the functions can be conscious, but we speak of the consciousness of a function only when not merely its application is at the disposal of the will, but when at the same time its principle is decisive for the orientation of consciousness. The latter event is true when, for instance, thinking is not a mere esprit de l'escalier, or rumination, but when its decisions possess an absolute validity, so that the logical conclusion in a given case holds good, whether as motive or as guarantee of practical action, without the backing of any further evidence. This absolute sovereignty always belongs, empirically, to one function alone, and can belong only to one function, since the equally independent intervention of another function would necessarily yield a different orientation, which would at least partially contradict the first. But, since it is a vital condition for the conscious adaptation-process that constantly clear and unambiguous aims should be in evidence, the presence of a second function of equivalent power is naturally forbidden' This other function, therefore, can have only a secondary importance, a fact which is also established empirically. Its secondary importance consists in the fact that, in a given case, it is not valid in its own right, as is the primary function, as an absolutely reliable and decisive factor, but comes into play more as an auxiliary or complementary function. Naturally only those functions can appear as auxiliary whose nature is not opposed to the leading function. For instance, feeling can never act as the second function by the side of thinking, because its nature stands in too strong a contrast to thinking. Thinking, if it is to be real thinking and true to its own principle, must scrupulously exclude feeling. This, of course, does not exclude the fact that individuals certainly exist in whom thinking and feeling stand upon the same [p. 515] level, whereby both have equal motive power in con~sdousness. But, in such a case, there is also no question of a differentiated type, but merely of a relatively undeveloped thinking and feeling. Uniform consciousness and unconsciousness of functions is, therefore, a distinguishing mark of a primitive mentality.

But according to socionics, and I agree with their system b/c I arrived at the same conclusion independently, There are 16 "types" but each type is a small Gaussian where some people have a well-developed aux, and others do not.

I like both sides. I noted that on a thread here, Architect commented that INTPs tend to use their Ne internally, by conducting thought experiments in our minds. At the same time, I can also see how INTPs share the same willingness as ENTPs to consider any possibility, and let the conclusions of experiments and observations by guided by how they play out.

No he said "useless."

10. Recapitulation of Introverted Irrational Types

The two types just depicted are almost inaccessible to external judgment. Because they are introverted and have in consequence a somewhat meagre capacity or willingness for expression, they offer but a frail handle for a telling criticism. Since their main activity is directed within, nothing is outwardly visible but reserve, secretiveness, lack of sympathy, or uncertainty, and an apparently groundless perplexity. When anything does come to the surface, it usually consists in indirect manifestations of inferior and relatively unconscious functions. Manifestations of such a nature naturally excite a certain environmental prejudice against these types. Accordingly they are mostly underestimated, or at least misunderstood. To the same degree as they fail to understand themselves -- because they very largely lack judgment -- they are also powerless to understand why they are so constantly undervalued by public opinion. They cannot see that their outward-going expression is, as a matter of fact, also of an inferior character. Their vision is enchanted by the abundance of subjective events. What happens there is so captivating, and of such inexhaustible attraction, that they do not appreciate the fact that their habitual communications to their circle express very, little of that real experience in which they themselves are, as it were, caught up. The fragmentary and, as a rule, quite episodic character of their communications make too great a demand upon the understanding and good will of their circle; furthermore, their mode of expression lacks that flowing warmth to the object which alone can have convincing force. On the contrary, these types show very often a brusque, repelling demeanour towards the outer world, although of this they are quite unaware, and have not the least intention of showing it. We shall form a [p. 512] fairer judgment of such men and grant them a greater indulgence, when we begin to realize how hard it is to translate into intelligible language what is perceived within. Yet this indulgence must not be so liberal as to exempt them altogether from the necessity of such expression. This could be only detrimental for such types. Fate itself prepares for them, perhaps even more than for other men, overwhelming external difficulties, which have a very sobering effect upon the intoxication of the inner vision. But frequently only an intense personal need can wring from them a human expression.

From an extraverted and rationalistic standpoint, such types are indeed the most fruitless of men.

This is an excellent, excellent observation. Thanks.

You're welcome.

Not sure what this means. In theory it should be exactly the same as INTJs except for the fact that the "vision" is concerned with different things.

I agree that INTJs also have visions, and have heard one or two describe them. INFJs tend to be more willing to admit to be trusting of things that are considered non-rational, like feelings, intuitions and psychic phenomena. Many INTJs tend to try to claim that everything they think is based on reason and evidence, and generally seem to scoff at things like feelings, intuitions and psychic phenomena.

Having heard a few visions from INTJs and INFJs, the visions of INTJs tended to resemble impressionist paintings, whose themes and elements tended to be about the emotional struggles they were dealing with in their personal life. The visions of INFJs tended to be more of a clear-cut abstract design, and tended to be about objective logical observations about esoteric topics.

This may be very true. The one ISFJ I do know is extremely concerned with food. On the whole though, it's like Jung said, they're hard to understand and they don't understand themselves either. They're melancholic creatures dwelling in the past.[/QUOTE]They also like to talk about their past. So it's not hard to get the info that they rely on, out of them. They don't correlate the two in their minds at the time, and so don't usually explain why they are behaving as they do. But once you chat to them, and get them to tell you about their life, what significant events happened to them, and what bothered them, then you know the rules that generate their behaviour.

E.G. on INTJf, an ISFJ was saying very nice things about INTPs. Then she posted that she was trying to date one. It did not work well. She then went through a few months where she spoke negatively about INTPs and positively about INTJs. For an INTP who recalled her posts, and thus knew of her past, it was not hard to see how her experiences framed her future comments.

 

[Architect]

I like both sides. I noted that on a thread here, Architect commented that INTPs tend to use their Ne internally, by conducting thought experiments in our minds.

Did I say that? It's true, and even more INTP's enjoy brainstorming aloud. My wife complains that her INTP's (me, son, friends) like to talk to much, mainly because we use her as a sounding board for our theories. My INTP friend does that with me, pisses me off as he likes to talk more than listen. Sucks to see yourself from the outside sometimes.

With some INTP's, particularly in the entertainment industry, you see a greater surfacing and apparent Ne. Larry David is one, he relies heavily on Ne to get him through the day as a comedian.